Changes

==INTRODUCTION==

==INTRODUCTION==

Twenty-two years ago I stumbled upon a life changing book.  It was “[[Stages of Faith]]” by [[James Fowler]].  Fowler taught a form of developmental [[psychology]] to seminary students at [[Emory University]]’s [[Candler School of Theology]].  His vision was to train future pastors to recognize that any given congregation will include a variety of people with differing faith-structures.  The idea was to equip the church to accommodate as well as challenge each type of faith.  Fowler’s academic work is based on meticulously categorized interviews with thousands of people, each describing his or her own spiritual journey, and answering specific survey questions.  The result is that Fowler identifies six distinct stages of faith that are universally applicable, as it turns out, to any faith tradition.   

Twenty-two years ago I stumbled upon a life changing book.  It was “[https://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/2219.htm Stages of Faith]” by James Fowler.  Fowler taught a form of developmental [[psychology]] to seminary students at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emory_University Emory University]’s [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candler_School_of_Theology Candler School of Theology].  His [[vision]] was to train future pastors to recognize that any given congregation will include a variety of people with differing [[faith]]-[[structure]]s.  The [[idea]] was to equip the church to accommodate as well as challenge each type of faith.  Fowler’s academic work is based on meticulously categorized interviews with hundreds of people, each describing his or her own spiritual journey, and answering specific survey questions.  The result is that Fowler identifies six distinct stages of faith that are universally applicable, as it turns out, to any faith [[tradition]].   

Here in America we prefer to choose our beliefs from a menu, but the fact that faith develops in stages is not something you can simply choose to believe or not.  It’s one of those things like gravity that is not optional.  Anyone actively engaged in his or her own spiritual growth will inevitably grow upward through at least some of the six stages in a very specific order that will never vary.  And while the direction and order of the faith-stages are inviolable, one may not necessarily ever grow beyond a particular level.  Take a snapshot at any given church and you will find representatives of every stage.  Even a sample of people at the same point in life, say, all 40 year-olds, will represent different stages.  It was stunning to read the book because I was reading my own biography in a sense.  It was unequivocally clear to me at the time that I was in Fowler’s fifth stage.  I had experienced a number of “dark nights of the soul” on the way to that stage and for the first time I fully understood the underlying process.   

Here in America we prefer to choose our [[belief]]s from a menu, but the fact that faith develops in stages is not something you can simply choose to believe or not.  It’s one of those things like [[gravity]] that is not optional.  Anyone actively engaged in his or her own [[spiritual]] growth will inevitably grow upward through at least some of the six stages in a very specific order that will never vary.  And while the direction and order of the faith-stages are inviolable, one may not necessarily ever grow beyond a particular level.  Take a snapshot at any given church and you will find representatives of every stage.  Even a sample of people at the same point in life, say, all 40 year-olds, will represent different stages.  It was stunning to read the book because I was reading my own biography in a sense.  It was unequivocally clear to me at the time that I was in Fowler’s fifth stage.  I had experienced a number of “dark nights of the soul” on the way to that stage and for the first time I fully understood the underlying process.   

Ten years later I discovered [[Ken Wilber]].  I had heard of Wilber long before that but finally decided to read some of his books.  Wilber is something the world hasn’t seen since the ancient Greeks—a full-time self-supporting philosopher who achieved a categorical breakthrough.  Like Fowler, Wilber sees life unfolding in stages but expands stage theory to a cosmic scale.  There is actually a direct connection between the two men as Wilber often cites Fowler in his own work.  Wilber covers a universe of topics in his opus but we will focus here on what he has to say about spiritual growth.  He goes well beyond Fowler in this line of thought.

Ten years later I discovered [[Ken Wilber]].  I had heard of Wilber long before that but finally decided to read some of his [[books]].  Wilber is something the world hasn’t seen since the ancient Greeks—a full-time self-supporting philosopher who achieved a categorical breakthrough.  Like Fowler, Wilber sees life unfolding in stages but expands stage theory to a [[cosmic]] scale.  There is actually a direct connection between the two men as Wilber often cites Fowler in his own work.  Wilber covers a universe of topics in his opus but we will [[focus]] here on what he has to say about spiritual growth.  He goes well beyond Fowler in this line of thought.

Wilber may copyright his books but not his [[philosophy]].  He works in collaboration with many others.  He acknowledges that his role is that of a compiler of the work and thought of hundreds of others from Tibetan gurus, to German philosophers, to Harvard researchers.  Wilber's 10% contribution has been to provide the glue that pulls together the history of the twin human quests for truth and for meaning into a single unified vision; a “philosophy of everything.”  Yes, I know…we’ve all tried to do that!  But Wilber does seem to have made a major breakthrough in unifying diverse fields of thought.  The scope of his writing is vast and there is much we could say regarding his social and political thought, his philosophy of [[science]], and his taxonomy of the entire [[universe]], but my purpose here will be limited to presenting a brief but clear introduction to Wilber as spiritual guide.  I believe there are three key concepts involved:  quadrants, stages,  and states.

Wilber may copyright his books but not his [[philosophy]].  He works in collaboration with many others.  He acknowledges that his role is that of a compiler of the work and thought of hundreds of others from Tibetan gurus, to German philosophers, to Harvard researchers.  Wilber's 10% contribution has been to provide the glue that pulls together the [[history]] of the twin human quests for [[truth]] and for [[meaning]] into a single unified [[vision]]; a “philosophy of everything.”  Yes, I know…we’ve all tried to do that!  But Wilber does seem to have made a major breakthrough in unifying diverse fields of thought.  The scope of his writing is vast and there is much we could say regarding his social and political thought, his philosophy of [[science]], and his taxonomy of the entire [[universe]], but my purpose here will be limited to presenting a brief but clear introduction to Wilber as spiritual guide.  I believe there are three key concepts involved:  '''quadrants, stages,''' and '''states.'''

==QUADRANTS==

==QUADRANTS==

From the beginning Wilber collected hundreds of bits of truth, wisdom, and theory from every imaginable source and struggled to make sense of it all.  Many of the concepts in his collection were mutually contradictory.  Then one day he was struck with a sudden flash of insight.  The result was a map of reality he calls “AQAL“ (all quadrants, all levels) which I will attempt to illustrate below.  Basically, the idea is that all existential reality lies in four coterminous dimensions even though we typically remain unconscious of those dimensions in the same way that a fish remains unaware of water.  For present purposes I will limit this discussion to the quadrants as they relate to human consciousness-events.  These are the quadrants:

From the beginning Wilber collected hundreds of bits of truth, [[wisdom]], and [[theory]] from every imaginable source and struggled to make sense of it all.  Many of the [[concepts]] in his collection were mutually contradictory.  Then one day he was struck with a sudden flash of [[insight]].  The result was a map of [[reality]] he calls “AQAL“ (all quadrants, all levels) which I will attempt to illustrate below.  Basically, the idea is that all existential reality lies in four coterminous dimensions even though we typically remain unconscious of those dimensions in the same way that a fish remains unaware of water.  For present purposes I will limit this discussion to the quadrants as they relate to human consciousness-events.  These are the quadrants:

 

'''THE FOUR QUADRANTS'''

'''THE FOUR QUADRANTS'''

One way to look at this chart is in terms of the classic subject/object problem.  On the left hand side you see subjectivity.  Individual subjectivity  is on the top left and collective subjectivity on the bottom left.  The right hand side represents objectivity.  Individual objectivity is on top right and collective objectivity on bottom right.  In Wilberian shorthand these are referred to as :

One way to look at this chart is in terms of the classic subject/object problem.  On the left hand side you see subjectivity.  Individual subjectivity  is on the top left and collective subjectivity on the bottom left.  The right hand side represents objectivity.  Individual objectivity is on top right and collective objectivity on bottom right.  In Wilberian shorthand these are referred to as :

I’m sure you get the idea now, but so what?  Well, the important thing to note for the moment is that no subjective state stands alone.  Every subjective state (UL) coexists within three other interdependent dimensions, two of which are quite objective. This has tremendous implications for, say, Christian contemplative prayer or Buddhist meditation which are  typically regarded as involving only interior states of consciousness.  But every inner spiritual state includes an outer "state of body" (UR) as well as a set of guiding concepts (LL) that come largely from the influence of others (LR) including teachers, churches, priests, parents, books, friends, TV, and society at large.

I’m sure you get the idea now, but so what?  Well, the important thing to note for the [[moment]] is that no subjective state stands alone.  Every subjective state (UL) coexists within three other interdependent [[dimensions]], two of which are quite ''objective''. This has tremendous implications for, say, Christian contemplative prayer or Buddhist meditation which are  typically regarded as involving only interior states of [[consciousness]].  But every inner spiritual state includes an outer "state of body" (UR) as well as a set of guiding concepts (LL) that come largely from the influence of others (LR) including teachers, churches, priests, parents, books, friends, TV, and [[society]] at large.

'''HISTORY OF THE QUADRANTS'''

'''HISTORY OF THE QUADRANTS'''

The Premodern paradigm

'''The Premodern Paradigm'''

Wilber describes at some length how the four quadrants evolved through the history of culture.  Back in premodern, or prerational times, all four quadrants were undifferentiated.  In other words, there was a magical thinking that inner beliefs directly influenced outer manifestations.  For example, I may believe that I can cause you pain by sticking pins in a doll.  Or I may pray for rain and when it finally does rain I see the prayer and the rain as cause and effect.  Alchemists believed that lead could become gold so they kept experimenting, expecting gold to appear.  Premodern thinking did not end in modern times—it persists everywhere.  To give a familiar example, many Protestant Christians believe that inner faith is given directly from God and is accompanied by a corresponding external object—the Bible—which also comes directly from the mind of God.  The Bible is thus literally the Word of God and once internalized, can be invoked to produce God’s miracle-working power.  I have known more than a few people who believed that Bible quotes can be used much like spells and incantations to manipulate reality and change circumstances, not unlike a voodoo doll!

Wilber describes at some length how the four quadrants evolved through the history of [[culture]].  Back in pre-modern, or pre-rational times, all four quadrants were undifferentiated.  In other [[words]], there was a [[magic]]al sort of [[thinking]] that one's [[inner life|inner state]] (UL) directly influenced outer events (UR).  For example, there is the belief that sticking pins in a doll will cause someone else to feel pain.  Or one may pray for rain and when rain finally comes (maybe weeks later) one then claims that the prayer was responsible.  Alchemists believed that lead could become gold so they kept experimenting, expecting gold eventually to appear.  Pre-modern thinking did not end in modern times—it persists everywhere.  To give a familiar example, one may "believe in the [[Bible]]" and based on that [[belief]], attempt to change or manipulate one's circumstances by quoting from the Bible.   

The Modern Paradigm

'''The Modern Paradigm'''

The Enlightenment and the scientific revolution led to modern times with a powerful new way of understanding the right hand side (the objective side) of reality, the result being that the entire left hand side (subjective) became demoted, unreal, or unimportant at best.  One example is modern medical practice.  When you are sick the doctor is not concerned with your inner consciousness but rather with the mechanics and chemistry of your body (UR).  He or she likely does not even want to talk to you other than possibly to ask where it hurts.  Typically you will be given a pill which is a chemical designed to alter your body chemistry.  This is a radical right-hand approach to reality which assumes that the LH side is immaterial to the cause and cure of your symptoms.  A right-hand approach to religion can be seen in studies where researchers have gone to prayer meetings and connected electrodes to participants’ brains (UR).  They discovered that certain brain waves (UR) activate during prayer (UL) and that endorphins (UR) are released in the brain (UR), thus creating the feeling of having a religious experience (UL). They conclude therefore that nothing is happening except chemistry (UR).  So the modern paradigm involves promoting the right hand side to the status of being verifiably real, while the left hand side is merely delusional in terms of knowing any real truth.   

[[The Enlightenment]] and the scientific revolution led to modern times with a powerful new way of understanding the right hand side of reality.  This new understanding was basically that objective (RH) reality simply obeys laws of [[nature]] and is completely independent of what we may believe.  A good example is modern medical [[practice]].  When you are sick the doctor is not concerned with your inner [[consciousness]] but rather with the mechanics and [[chemistry]] of your body (UR).  He or she likely does not even want to talk to you other than possibly to ask where it hurts.  Typically you will be given a pill which is a chemical designed to alter your body [[chemistry]].  This is a [[radical]] right-hand approach to reality which assumes that the LH side is immaterial to the cause and cure of your symptoms.  A right-hand approach to [[religion]] can be seen in studies where researchers have gone to prayer meetings and connected electrodes to participants’ brains (UR).  They discovered that certain brain waves (UR) activate during prayer (UL) and that endorphins (UR) are released in the brain (UR), thus creating the feeling of having a religious [[experience]] (UL). They conclude therefore that nothing is happening except chemistry (UR).  So the modern paradigm involves promoting the right hand side to the status of being verifiably real, while the left hand side is often merely delusional.   

Let's use the Bible again as another example of how the right hand approach can be applied to faith.  German scholars came along in the late 19th century and said "the Bible is an historical artifact that can be examined with the same critical scrutiny as a rock, a viral disease, or Shakespeare's Hamlet."  They ignored what faith had to say about the Bible and studied it purely on its own terms.  It subsequently proved to be an ordinary classifiable human document and a product of its times.  Scholars could only conclude that if God did have any influence over the Bible it was indirect at best.  So the Germans, for the first time, began to examine only the right-hand side of faith (the Bible in this case) and found that it was completely independent of the left-hand side (inner belief) and could thus be treated as a separate object of study.  As a result, some Christians ("conservatives") merely denounced this scholarship, and others ("liberals") agreed with the critics but then compartmentalized faith itself in the LH side where it would be immune from further RH critical scrutiny.   

Let's use the Bible again as another example of how the right hand approach can be applied to faith.  German scholars came along in the late 19th century and said "the Bible is an historical [[artifact]] that can be examined with the same critical scrutiny as a rock, a viral disease, or Shakespeare's Hamlet."  They ignored what faith had to say about the Bible and studied it purely on its own terms.  It subsequently proved to be an ordinary classifiable human document and a product of its times.  Scholars could only conclude that if God did have any influence over the Bible it was indirect at best.  So the Germans, for the first time, began to examine only the right-hand side of faith (the Bible in this case) and found that it was completely independent of the left-hand side (inner belief) and could thus be treated as a separate object of study.  As a result, some Christians ("conservatives") merely denounced this scholarship, and others ("liberals") agreed with the critics but then compartmentalized faith itself in the LH side where it would be immune from further RH critical scrutiny.   

Wilber strongly asserts that when modernism differentiated the subjective (LH) side from the objective (RH) side, that was a very positive thing for the most part. It gave us almost miraculous mastery of our world, including medical knowledge, electricity, automobiles, and other amazing benefits, and freed us from myth and the magical thinking of alchemy, voodoo, etc.  But it came with a price tag:  it demoted the states of inner consciousness to a place of relative unimportance.   

Wilber strongly asserts that when modernism differentiated the subjective (LH) side from the objective (RH) side, that was a very positive thing for the most part. It gave us almost miraculous mastery of our world, including medical knowledge, electricity, automobiles, and other amazing benefits, and freed us from myth and the magical thinking of alchemy, voodoo, etc.  But it came with a price tag:  it demoted the states of inner consciousness to a place of relative unimportance.   

The Postmodern Paradigm

'''The Postmodern Paradigm'''

Next came postmodernism which was basically a reaction against the radical objectivity of modernism.  It insisted that subjectivity is really at the heart of knowing.  Subjectivity, however, proved to be a subversive foundation for knowledge because if anything it tended to debunk any kind of certainty.  In the hands of postmodernism subjectivity became a two-edged sword, cutting both right and left, even carrying the potential seeds of its own self-destruction.  On the RH side postmodernism challenged the foundations of science itself, which it saw as a series of subjective mental models, expressed in relativistic language, and ever subject to revision.  Science may have successfully manipulated nature but it delivered no truth.  While science never experienced a crisis of self-doubt because of this line of reasoning, it certainly demonstrated that subjectivity is an important component of any kind of knowing, even scientific knowing.   

Next came postmodernism which was basically a reaction against the radical objectivity of modernism.  It insisted that subjectivity is really at the heart of knowing.  Subjectivity, however, proved to be a subversive foundation for knowledge because if anything it tended to debunk any kind of certainty.  In the hands of postmodernism subjectivity became a two-edged sword, cutting both right and left, even carrying the potential seeds of its own self-destruction.  On the RH side postmodernism challenged the foundations of science itself, which it saw as a series of subjective mental models, expressed in relativistic language, and ever subject to revision.  Science may have successfully manipulated nature but it delivered no truth.  While science never experienced a crisis of self-doubt because of this line of reasoning, it certainly demonstrated that subjectivity is an important component of any kind of knowing, even scientific knowing.   

The important point we want to make here is that neither the typical sociologist nor the Christian reacting to his question are particularly aware of quadrants.  Both assume that the theology and the inner faith fall together because they are in the same box.  But in Wilber's AQAL model that is not the case—inner consciousness is clearly in UL, and any given theology or interpretation is in LL.  Just as he does with the modernist critique of faith, Wilber puts a positive spin on the postmodernist critique.  The sociologists (and other postmodernist voices) have actually done us a favor.  They have clarified the issues and shown us what is solid and what is illusory.  And that, of course, is a giant step of spiritual growth.  If you happen to be observing this conversation from an AQAL perspective you can see that while postmodernism appears to have debunked both LL and UL, in reality it has merely divided them.  The ironic result is that it actually establishes our inner consciousness as a truly solid component of our spirituality while at the same time liberating it from the interpretations that hinder spiritual growth.   

The important point we want to make here is that neither the typical sociologist nor the Christian reacting to his question are particularly aware of quadrants.  Both assume that the theology and the inner faith fall together because they are in the same box.  But in Wilber's AQAL model that is not the case—inner consciousness is clearly in UL, and any given theology or interpretation is in LL.  Just as he does with the modernist critique of faith, Wilber puts a positive spin on the postmodernist critique.  The sociologists (and other postmodernist voices) have actually done us a favor.  They have clarified the issues and shown us what is solid and what is illusory.  And that, of course, is a giant step of spiritual growth.  If you happen to be observing this conversation from an AQAL perspective you can see that while postmodernism appears to have debunked both LL and UL, in reality it has merely divided them.  The ironic result is that it actually establishes our inner consciousness as a truly solid component of our spirituality while at the same time liberating it from the interpretations that hinder spiritual growth.   

Keep in mind that while we have used a Protestant Christian setting to illustrate these points, anyone that is growing in consciousness will necessarily have to deal with these same questions in the context of his/her own native faith.

*Keep in mind that while we have used a Protestant Christian setting to illustrate these points, anyone that is growing in consciousness will necessarily have to deal with these same questions in the context of his/her own native faith.

Let’s stop and summarize this cultural history of the quadrants:

Let’s stop and summarize this cultural history of the quadrants:

'''PREMODERN:'''  LH & RH are together (undifferentiated)  

'''PREMODERN:'''  LH & RH are together (undifferentiated)

'''MODERNISM:'''    LH & RH are differentiated  

'''MODERNISM:'''    LH & RH are differentiated

'''POSTMODERNISM:'''  UL is differentiated from LL  

'''POSTMODERNISM:'''  UL is differentiated from LL  

Wilber’s solution is:

Wilber’s solution is:

'''CRITICAL WILBER CONCEPT:'''  Here’s one way to consider reintegration between RH and LH:  in the previous example of monitoring subjects’ brains with electrodes during prayer, Wilber would say there is reality happening in every quadrant.  He holds that mind is real, and therefore some sort of genuine growth, change, or expansion of consciousness is happening in the context of prayer.  At the same time he also asserts that the body is real and so endorphins are indeed more active during prayer, and are possibly even the sole cause of our devout feelings of inner peace.  It’s simply built into reality that everything is a two sided coin (actually a four-sided coin!) and therefore it doesn’t really matter if scientists find dopamine or even pink elephants in the brain; neither constitutes evidence that consciousness isn’t real* or isn’t growing in the context of prayer.  Dopamine, serotonin, or other brain chemicals do not negate spiritual growth.  However, if we remain unaware (or in denial) of the reality of both RH & LH sides of our experience,  then we are forced to choose in a false dualism.  One choice is to hold the infantile prerational and prescientific view that our prayer caused our inner religious experience (sometimes leveraged into a proof that God exists).  The other choice is to accept the modern critical (RH) view that we live in a colorless, flat, and demystified world in which we are just a collection of neuron-charged chemicals that generate an illusion of free will (sometimes leveraged into a proof that God does not exist).  Wilber, by contrast, would maintain that Spirit is the ground of all being, and that includes brain chemicals as well as consciousness.  We could say that the inner experience and the corresponding body processes taken together constitute a “spirit-event.”

'''CRITICAL WILBER CONCEPT:'''  Here’s one way to consider reintegration between RH and LH:  in the previous example of monitoring subjects’ brains with electrodes during prayer, Wilber would say there is reality happening in every quadrant.  He holds that mind is real, and therefore some sort of genuine growth, change, or expansion of consciousness is happening in the context of prayer.  At the same time he also asserts that the body is real and so endorphins are indeed more active during prayer, and are possibly even the sole cause of our devout feelings of inner peace.  It’s simply built into reality that everything is a two sided coin (actually a four-sided coin!) and therefore it doesn’t really matter if scientists find dopamine or even pink elephants in the brain; neither constitutes evidence that consciousness isn’t real* or isn’t growing in the context of prayer.  Dopamine, serotonin, or other brain chemicals do not negate spiritual growth.  However, if we remain unaware (or in denial) of the reality of both RH & LH sides of our experience,  then we are forced to choose in a false dualism.  One choice is to hold the infantile prerational and prescientific view that our prayer caused our inner religious experience (sometimes leveraged into a proof that God exists).  The other choice is to accept the modern critical (RH) view that we live in a colorless, flat, and demystified world in which we are just a collection of neuron-charged chemicals that generate an illusion of free will (sometimes leveraged into a proof that God does not exist).  Wilber, by contrast, would maintain that Spirit is the ground of all being, and that includes brain chemicals as well as consciousness.  We could say that the inner experience and the corresponding body processes taken together constitute a “spirit-event.”

*[You may ask, what critic would suggest consciousness is not real?  I refer you to Edward Wilson, a Harvard biologist who argues that everything can be explained in terms of its smallest components.  Wilson says consciousness is simply the particle physics that ultimately underlie the molecules, cells, and neurons of the brain.  Consciousness is essentially a quantum field following natural laws, therefore it has no free will, it just generates the illusion of one.  Wilson claims we don’t know enough yet to explain the physics, but soon we will.  This begs the question…..who is this “we” that will soon understand how the illusion of consciousness is generated?  A quantum field that learns how to comprehend itself….isn’t that called….self-transcendence?!  It‘s hard to see how that‘s not the same thing as “real” consciousness.  We‘re obviously in the realm of semantics here].

*[You may ask, what critic would suggest consciousness is not real?  I refer you to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._O._Wilson Edward Wilson], a Harvard biologist who argues that everything can be explained in terms of its smallest components.  Wilson says consciousness is simply the particle physics that ultimately underlie the molecules, cells, and neurons of the brain.  Consciousness is essentially a quantum field following natural laws, therefore it has no free will, it just generates the illusion of one.  Wilson claims we don’t know enough yet to explain the physics, but soon we will.  This begs the question…..who is this “we” that will soon understand how the illusion of consciousness is generated?  A quantum field that learns how to comprehend itself….isn’t that called….self-transcendence?!  It‘s hard to see how that‘s not the same thing as “real” consciousness.  We‘re obviously in the realm of semantics here. Click [https://nordan.daynal.org/wiki/index.php?title=The_Origins_Of_Religion_in_Universal_Consciousness this link] for more on consciousness and physics].

Now let’s take another tour through AQAL consciousness.  This time we will fill in with more detail than with the examples we used earlier.  Let’s consider a contemplative prayer group at a weekend Catholic retreat as an example.

Now let’s take another tour through AQAL consciousness.  This time we will fill in with more detail than with the examples we used earlier.  Let’s consider a contemplative prayer group at a weekend Catholic retreat as an example.

Here’s the AQAL chart for our Catholic experience:

[[Image:Quad_2.jpg|right|frame]]

 

Here’s the AQAL chart for our Catholic experience:

I feel warmth and peace | Dopamine flow to the brain

There is a whole body of contemplative | We’re inside of a Catholic rec. hall

experience. St. John, St. Teresa, | 32 people are cross-legged on mats

Obviously we have many different viewpoints here.  The unique position of Wilber is that every one of these people is correct!  But we must understand that each observer in this scenario is looking only at one quadrant and they are doing so from a specific observation point.  Each comment on the given quadrant is correct relative to the perspective of the speaker.  Here’s how we can map these perspectives:

Obviously we have many different viewpoints here.  The unique position of Wilber is that ''every one of these people is correct!''   But we must understand that each observer in this scenario is looking only at one quadrant and they are doing so from a specific observation point.  Each comment on the given quadrant is correct relative to the perspective of the speaker.  Here’s how we can map these perspectives:

 

 

 

 

==STAGES==

==STAGES==

The second key concept is stages.  A stage is essentially a paradigm.  It is a well established mode of being through which we interpret reality.  The time we spend in a given stage is typically measured in years.  Over time stages eventually collapse into a new stage.  This collapse is a slow process but may appear sudden when the final shift occurs, or it may not be consciously noticed at all.  Two (or more) stages will often overlap for a period of time before the new stage becomes fully established.   

The second key concept is stages.  A '''stage''' is essentially a paradigm.  It is a well established mode of being through which we interpret reality.  The time we spend in a given stage is typically measured in years.  Over time stages eventually collapse into a new stage.  This collapse is a slow process but may appear sudden when the final shift occurs, or it may not be consciously noticed at all.  Two (or more) stages will often overlap for a period of time before the new stage becomes fully established.   

'''THE STAGES OF FAITH'''

'''THE STAGES OF FAITH'''

I already mentioned that Wilber, like Fowler, is a faith-stage theorist.  But Wilber deals with stages in a much broader and more generalized way.  He draws heavily on many specialties within the field of developmental psychology, including Fowler‘s work.  Over the last hundred years there has been a lot of psychological research devoted to the stages of human development. The interesting thing about this research which is coming from many different places and many different angles, is that it all has in common the view that human development unfolds in distinct stages, and these stages occur in a set and predictable order, just as we mentioned with Fowler.  The number of named stages, and the labels assigned them may differ, but in general all follow one scheme which can be simplified to three phases:  egocentric to ethnocentric to world-centric  (it’s all about me, it’s all about my group, it’s all about all of us).  Of course, there can be many identified and named stages in between, but this is the general directional flow—away from ego and toward global identity.  As we said earlier, it is entirely possible to fail to ever grow beyond a given stage.  However, assuming one is progressing, it is impossible to skip around in these stages because each one is necessarily built on the foundation of the previous stage.  So the order of progression never changes.   

I already mentioned that Wilber, like Fowler, is a faith-stage theorist.  But Wilber deals with stages in a much broader and more generalized way.  He draws heavily on many specialties within the field of developmental psychology, including Fowler‘s work.  Over the last hundred years there has been a lot of psychological research devoted to the stages of human development. The interesting thing about this research which is coming from many different places and many different angles, is that it all has in common the view that human development unfolds in distinct stages, and these stages occur in a set and predictable order, just as we mentioned with Fowler.  The number of named stages, and the labels assigned them may differ, but in general all follow one scheme which can be simplified to three phases:  egocentric to ethnocentric to world-centric  (it’s all about me, it’s all about my group, it’s all about all of us).  Of course, there can be many identified and named stages in between, but this is the general directional flow—away from ego and toward global identity.  As we said earlier, it is entirely possible to fail to ever grow beyond a given stage.  However, assuming one is progressing, it is impossible to skip around in these stages because each one is necessarily built on the foundation of the previous stage.  So the order of progression never changes.   

'''6.  Universalizing Faith''' — This is a stage where all the opposites and paradoxes of the fifth stage come together in an intuitively grasped grand unity in which one feels absorbed by something bigger.  Fowler maintains that this stage is very rare, and includes those people who completely lose ego-self (and sometimes their lives through martyrdom) in a larger cause, concept, or mystical union with God, or “oneness with the universe.”

'''6.  Universalizing Faith''' — This is a stage where all the opposites and paradoxes of the fifth stage come together in an intuitively grasped grand unity in which one feels absorbed by something bigger.  Fowler maintains that this stage is very rare, and includes those people who completely lose ego-self (and sometimes their lives through martyrdom) in a larger cause, concept, or mystical union with God, or “oneness with the universe.”

[Readers at Fowler’s second and third stages will interpret the later stages as the process of loss of faith.  But it should be emphatically stated that in Fowler’s model these stages actually represent upward growth into full and appropriate adult faith].

*[Readers at Fowler’s second and third stages will interpret the later stages as the process of loss of faith.  But it should be emphatically stated that in Fowler’s model these stages actually represent upward growth into full and appropriate adult faith].

==STATES==  

==STATES==  

State means “state of consciousness.”  There are ordinary everyday states of consciousness, and special states of consciousness that Wilber calls "transpersonal."  In spite of the mystical sound of the word, there is nothing magical about a transpersonal state.  It simply refers to a temporary suspension of your normal mode of experiencing everything exclusively through the lens of your individual self.  We all have such moments.  For example, a transpersonal state could arise while interacting with an animal, say your cat, and you have a transforming experience in which you realize that you and the cat are co-participants in an identical existence—a common quest for food, sex, companionship, shelter—and suddenly you are sharing consciousness and your normal sense of separate identity seems to dissolve as you are absorbed into the other for a brief moment.  In this case you have transcended the merely personal which is all that “transpersonal” means.   

'''State''' means “state of consciousness.”  There are ordinary everyday states of consciousness, and special states of consciousness that Wilber calls "transpersonal."  In spite of the mystical sound of the word, there is nothing magical about a transpersonal state.  It simply refers to a temporary suspension of your normal mode of experiencing everything exclusively through the lens of your individual self.  We all have such moments.  For example, a transpersonal state could arise while interacting with an animal, say your cat, and you have a transforming experience in which you realize that you and the cat are co-participants in an identical existence—a common quest for food, sex, companionship, shelter—and suddenly you are sharing consciousness and your normal sense of separate identity seems to dissolve as you are absorbed into the other for a brief moment.  In this case you have ''transcended the merely personal'' which is all that “transpersonal” means.   

When Wilber talks about transpersonal states he is usually referring to a conscious attempt to cultivate just such an experience,  typically through meditation, and generally in a context larger than your cat.  A transpersonal state may involve a feeling of bliss, transcendence, closeness to God, or just emptiness.  We easily stereotype meditation as a mystical Eastern path to secret knowledge and power but it’s really little more than an exercise designed to help you practice seeing things from outside the “merely personal” perspective.  Like any exercise, its purpose is to strengthen something.  In this case it strengthens your awareness that you are part of something bigger than yourself.  It thus reinforces your growth from egocentric to world-centric.

When Wilber talks about transpersonal states he is usually referring to a conscious attempt to cultivate just such an experience,  typically through meditation, and generally in a context larger than your cat.  A transpersonal state may involve a feeling of bliss, transcendence, closeness to God, or just emptiness.  We easily stereotype meditation as a mystical Eastern path to secret knowledge and power but it’s really little more than an exercise designed to help you practice seeing things from outside the “merely personal” perspective.  Like any exercise, its purpose is to strengthen something.  In this case it strengthens your awareness that you are part of something bigger than yourself.  It thus reinforces your growth from egocentric to world-centric.

'''PARADIGM, PLEASE (The Real Sixth Stage)'''

'''PARADIGM, PLEASE (The Real Sixth Stage)'''

Wilber’s new breakthrough says that the sixth stage as originally conceived (as four “second tier” stages) is simply missing a paradigm.  People are seeking transpersonal states and because they have no sixth stage paradigm they are bringing with them the only paradigm they have, which is the wrong one, and so their meditation is working only to reinforce their old paradigm; their old stage.  Many meditation teachers including authentic ones from, say, Tibet, would challenge Wilber at this point, saying that the whole point of meditation is to dump paradigms and concepts and seek emptiness instead.  This is a watershed issue, and a point where Wilber departs from much of standard Eastern consciousness training.  He agrees that emptiness is indeed a desirable meditative state to be attained but maintains that it is impossible not to interpret any and all states, including emptiness!  UL may be empty, but LL cannot be.   

Wilber’s new breakthrough says that the sixth stage as originally conceived (as four “second tier” stages) is simply missing a paradigm.  People are seeking transpersonal states and because they have no sixth stage paradigm they are bringing with them the only paradigm they have, which is the wrong one, and so their meditation is working only to reinforce their old paradigm; their old stage.  Many meditation teachers including authentic ones from, say, Tibet, would challenge Wilber at this point, saying that the whole point of meditation is to dump paradigms and concepts and seek emptiness instead.  This is a watershed issue, and a point where Wilber departs from much of standard Eastern consciousness training.  He agrees that emptiness is indeed a desirable meditative state to be attained but maintains that it is impossible not to interpret any and all states, ''including emptiness!'' UL may be empty, but LL cannot be.   

[Here we have another important perspective on what integral means.  It means we bring a bit of good old western rationalism to the whole process of Eastern wisdom.  So far we have not looked at it from this angle, but Wilber does not let the Eastern sages off the hook any easier than he lets Westerners off.  Wilber asserts that much of indigenous Eastern practice is every bit as non-integral as its Western counterpart.  Without the input of the West, the East faces two weaknesses.  One is that much of its practice is prerational, and the other is that is lacks the psychoanalytical acumen to identify growth blockages in the first tier stages].

*[Here we have another important perspective on what integral means.  It means we bring a bit of good old western rationalism to the whole process of Eastern wisdom.  So far we have not looked at it from this angle, but Wilber does not let the Eastern sages off the hook any easier than he lets Westerners off.  Wilber asserts that much of indigenous Eastern practice is every bit as non-integral as its Western counterpart.  Without the input of the West, the East faces two weaknesses.  One is that much of its practice is prerational, and the other is that is lacks the psychoanalytical acumen to identify growth blockages in the first tier stages].

And now Wilber announces the real sixth stage...the Integral Stage.  This is the point where the all-encompassing (quadrant spanning) integral philosophy meets spiritual growth, and integral philosophy itself becomes a stage of faith!  But how do you get to this stage?  By now it should be obvious that you cannot pole vault yourself into this stage with meditation. You get there the old fashioned way, through cognitive, rational paradigm shift, the same way you made it to all the other stages.  An important point about the integral stage is that, yes, it is a stage of mystical union as we always suspected, but it does not come from the effort of invoking mystical feelings.  It’s just an ordinary cognitive paradigm.  It’s a conglomeration of concepts which are readily available to us, and now we finally pull them all together in a pattern.  It involves no magic; it’s just another stage.  And it happens to be the first stage that correctly supports transpersonal states and now allows those states to actually advance your consciousness instead of holding it back.  It is a stage which says that because LL is a construction you are responsible for what you plug into it.  Knowing this, you can plug Buddhism in if you want to—but you don’t have to.  Because you are AQAL you can plug your own native symbols back in, Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, or whatever, and they can no longer block your growth in that old pathological feedback loop because instead of controlling and limiting your inner consciousness, they are now understood as languages in its service.  You are now practicing integral Christianity, integral Judaism, integral Buddhism.  Even integral atheism is a potential language of faith!

And now Wilber announces the real sixth stage...the '''Integral Stage'''.  This is the point where the all-encompassing (quadrant spanning) integral philosophy meets spiritual growth, and integral philosophy itself becomes a stage of faith!  But how do you get to this stage?  By now it should be obvious that you cannot pole vault yourself into this stage with meditation. You get there the old fashioned way, through cognitive, rational paradigm shift, the same way you made it to all the other stages.  An important point about the integral stage is that, yes, it is a stage of mystical union as we always suspected, but it does not come from the effort of invoking mystical feelings.  It’s just an ordinary cognitive paradigm.  It’s a conglomeration of concepts which are readily available to us, and now we finally pull them all together in a pattern.  It involves no magic; it’s just another stage.  And it happens to be the first stage that correctly supports transpersonal states and now allows those states to actually advance your consciousness instead of holding it back.  It is a stage which says that because LL is a construction you are responsible for what you plug into it.  Knowing this, you can plug Buddhism in if you want to—but you don’t have to.  Because you are AQAL you can plug your own native symbols back in, Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, or whatever, and they can no longer block your growth in that old pathological feedback loop because instead of controlling and limiting your inner consciousness, they are now understood as languages in its service.  You are now practicing integral Christianity, integral Judaism, integral Buddhism.  Even integral atheism is a potential language of faith!

==CONCLUSION==

==CONCLUSION==

If we could distill this whole discussion into a single principle it would be:  '''The value of states increases in direct proportion to advancement through the stages.'''  A lot of American Buddhism has the cart before the horse—it is seeking the instant gratification of states instead of the long-term investment of stages.  It has often consisted of little more than the idea that meditation leads to mystical experiences that will result in "enlightenment."  But mystical states can be just another yuppie achievement in this context.  Transpersonal states of mind are to be thought of as neither an achievement nor an attainment.  They are a tool that, when combined with right thinking, will help us dump achievement, dump attainment, and dump ego.  The idea that "meditation causes enlightenment" is a classic example of prerational magical thinking.  While Wilber promotes Buddhism, seemingly because of its advantage of having a more straightforward spiritual language than other religious options, he also clearly argues that the mystical states of mind often popularly associated with Buddhism have little value unless they occur in an advanced stage of faith and that is something that can occur within (or without) any religion.  His message to us is simple:  "Grow up!" meaning grow though the stages of faith.  That's where our spirituality should be focused—right thinking; right interpretation; right paradigm.  If "enlightenment" itself has any meaning, then we saw it in the seventh stage:  the right paradigm combined with the right [sustainable] state of mind.

If we could distill this whole discussion into a single principle it would be:  '''The value of states increases in direct proportion to advancement through the stages.'''  A lot of American Buddhism has the cart before the horse—it is seeking the instant gratification of states instead of the long-term investment of stages.  It has often consisted of little more than the idea that meditation leads to mystical experiences that will result in "enlightenment."  But mystical states can be just another yuppie achievement in this context.  Transpersonal states of mind are to be thought of as neither an achievement nor an attainment.  They are a tool that, when combined with right thinking, will help us dump achievement, dump attainment, and dump ego.  The idea that "meditation causes enlightenment" is a classic example of prerational magical thinking.  While Wilber promotes Buddhism, seemingly because of its advantage of having a more straightforward spiritual language than other religious options, he also clearly argues that the mystical states of mind often popularly associated with Buddhism have little value unless they occur in an advanced stage of faith and that is something that can occur within (or without) any religion.  His message to us is simple:  "Grow up!" meaning ''grow though the stages of faith''.  That's where our spirituality should be focused—right thinking; right interpretation; right paradigm.  If "enlightenment" itself has any meaning, then we saw it in the seventh stage:  the right paradigm combined with the right [sustainable] state of mind.

'''A Final Question:  Is Wilber “elitist”?'''

'''A Final Question:  Is Wilber “elitist”?'''

If you have read this far it has likely occurred to you to wonder how some of the great spiritual luminaries from centuries past—St. John-of-the-Cross, for example—could be considered spiritually advanced when they utterly lacked the clarifying power that according to Wilber came only in the wake of modernism and postmodernism.  Is it true that only those of us on this side of history have any hope of being spiritually awakened?  In a sense, yes, Wilber is elitist concerning this question.  He would say that we are indeed at a spiritual advantage today.  Not that St. John, Jesus, or Siddhartha did not represent pinnacles of spiritual genius by any standards.  But their spirituality derived primarily from a direct ability to attain and sustain states of mystical union, or non-dual consciousness, as opposed to an ascent through the vertical stages as we have discussed.  Disadvantaged?—yes, but still more enlightened than most people will ever be.   

If you have read this far it has likely occurred to you to wonder how some of the great spiritual luminaries from centuries past—St. John-of-the-Cross, for example—could be considered spiritually advanced when they utterly lacked the clarifying power that according to Wilber came only in the wake of modernism and postmodernism.  Is it true that only those of us on this side of history have any hope of being spiritually awakened?  In a sense, yes, Wilber is elitist concerning this question.  He would say that we are indeed at a spiritual ''advantage'' today.  Not that St. John, Jesus, or Siddhartha did not represent pinnacles of spiritual genius by any standards, but their spirituality derived primarily from a direct ability to attain and sustain states of mystical union, or non-dual consciousness, as opposed to an ascent through the vertical stages as we have discussed.  Disadvantaged?—yes, but still more enlightened than most people will ever be.   

 

Wilber’s tendency to place cultures and ideas in a hierarchy of importance and value is rooted not so much in pure elitism as in his strong connection to German Idealism as represented by philosophers such as Hegel, and especially Schelling, who hold that evolution is driving history toward a cosmic goal .  This idealism sees history as an upward evolutionary spiral in which Spirit, as the underpinning of nature, is animating all of Being toward the goal of complete Self-Consciousness.  Assuming the correctness of the metaphysics of idealism, it logically follows that the further along in history we are the more advanced we are in consciousness growth, collectively speaking, and thus we have greater potential overall for spiritual enlightenment than those from past centuries.  If this philosophy constitutes “elitism” then Wilber is guilty as charged.

By his own admission Wilber is somewhat of an elitist where consciousness is concerned.  But he explains that this simply means that some things have more value than others.  Looking at an example of cultural values, we could say that it’s probably better to allow every citizen to vote in elections than to throw citizens into volcanoes to appease the gods.  For those who are still in the pluralistic/green stage, that is a politically incorrect position because one of the paramount principles of that stage is that  “all cultural values are equally valid.” For Wilber, this pluralistic lack of discernment is simply wrong-headed.  Many green-stage people will tout Native American spirituality as being superior because it calls for "honoring the land" in contradistinction to the exploitation of the land perpetrated by the modern rationalist paradigm.  Wilber would dispute this position, arguing that Native American spirituality is a low level form of consciousness being prerational as well as magical/mythic.  According to Wilber we should indeed honor the land, but do so from a [post-postmodern] integral perspective.  Why unnecessarily set your spirituality back two or three hundred years just to be ecologically responsible?  While this approach makes Wlber sound like a 1950’s conservative and a Sierra Club liberal all rolled into one, the fact is that he is post-conservative and post-liberal.  Wilber has no interest in anything but truth and in that pursuit he often takes positions that appear in turn regressively conservative and boldly liberal from our contemporary perspective.  

----

Wilber’s tendency to place cultures, ideas, and consciousness stages in a hierarchy of importance and value is rooted not so much in pure elitism as in his strong connection to German Idealism as represented by philosophers such as Hegel, and especially Schelling, who hold that evolution is driving history toward a cosmic goal .  This idealism sees history as an upward evolutionary spiral in which '''Spirit''', as the underpinning of nature, is animating all of '''Being''' toward the goal of complete '''Self-Consciousness'''.  Assuming the correctness of the metaphysics of idealism, it logically follows that the further along in history we are the more advanced we are in consciousness growth, collectively speaking, and thus we have greater potential overall for spiritual enlightenment than those from past centuries.  If this philosophy constitutes “elitism” then Wilber is guilty as charged.

For additional reading I refer the interested reader to Ken Wilber, Integral Spirituality: ISBN 978-1590303467 Shambhala Publications, 2006.

# Integral Spirituality, by Ken Wilber ISBN 978-1590303467 Shambhala Publications, 2006.

[[Category: Religion]]

[[Category: Religion]]